Help VS Business

[ks333]

HELP - Why it can only be free of charge

I believe in altruism. In my opinion it is one of the things that keeps our world running. People helping others. Which is why I find it so frustrating when I hear people say “I help people do this and that, oh and here is my price list”. I might be alone in this, but I find this highly disingenuous.

If you are taking money then you are not helping, you are providing a service. Help is what a sales consultant does when a customer asks them a question, “I am looking for a so and so product do you sell it?”. The customer will pay for the goods but not for asking a question. Yes, the cost of customer service is already built into the price of the product, but the customer may or may not buy anything, however they will still receive the ‘help’ that they needed. Help is what you do when someone in the street asks for directions. Help is when someone’s battery died and you let them make a phone call from your mobile.

There are all sorts of businesses out there that provide various assistance from setting up a company to recruiting the right staff. But the key difference is they get paid for doing that, by the person they are “helping”. Sometimes they will do the whole thing for you, or only a part of the task, essentially decreasing your workload, and ‘helping’ you. But the fact that they are doing it for a financial compensation makes it a service, not help.

Why is this distinction important? Words matter a great deal, and by blurring the line between business and altruism we are decreasing the significance of the latter, making us associate help with money and less likely to do something without a financial reward. It diminishes acts of kindness because we view it as just business.

There is nothing wrong with charging money in exchange for providing a service, if people need what you have to offer, they will pay for it. Just please, don’t call it help.

[Orcaxcvwhale]

Interesting viewpoint and arguments here indeed. I think reality is far more complex than a simple distinction between “help” and “service.”

First, not all help is easily quantifiable. If I help an injured animal on the street for nothing, we would call that altruism. But if I care for an animal I own, is that no longer help simply because I benefit emotionally from it? The action may look identical, yet the motivation and outcome exist on a spectrum rather than in separate categories.

The same applies to human relationships. When you help a family member for free, is that purely altruistic? Often there is an unspoken expectation of reciprocity. Not necessarily money, but future support, loyalty, or care.

If compensation can exist in forms other than money, then money itself cannot be the sole factor that transforms help into a service.

If the essence of the article is that we should distinguish between acts done for personal gain and acts done purely for others, then I would argue that such purity rarely exists. Even deeply compassionate actions contain elements of self-interest. A mother caring for her child may be acting out of love, instinct, emotional reward, or even the biological drive to see her DNA pass on. The presence of benefit does not automatically invalidate the help being given.

Very few actions are completely selfless, yet that does not make them meaningless or purely transactional.

This is also why Causevest interests me. The question should not always be “Is this altruistic or not?” but rather “How can we encourage more people to act in ways that create positive outcomes when they otherwise might not?” Incentives do not necessarily destroy altruism. Sometimes they expand participation in doing good.

My own studies in development and international aid left me cautious about simplistic ideas of helping. The phrase, “You can do more harm with an open hand than a clenched fist,” stayed with me because intention alone is not enough. Help must also be effective.

At the same time, doing nothing is rarely better. Even when we act selflessly, we often gain something intangible. A sense of purpose, reassurance about humanity, or simply the feeling that people like us exist. That emotional reward is, in its own way, a form of self-interest.

So perhaps the more meaningful question is not whether profit invalidates help, but whether profit and positive impact can coexist.

For clarity on my side a few questions many healthcare workers say money is not their primary motivation, yet they still need salaries to live.

Under your definition, are they never helping patients, only providing services?

If emotional satisfaction or social recognition is a reward, does that in your opinion also invalidate altruism?

Most people feel good after helping others. Is that still selfless?

Is the moral value of an action determined by motivation, outcome, or both?